A new study from the Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that America’s land, exclusive of buildings or other improvements, was worth nearly $23 trillion in 2009. It has undoubtedly increased since then. The analysis, which was summarized in a Wall Street Journal blog post yesterday, presents estimates by state (for the lower 48 states only) broken into three categories: federal, developed, and agricultural.
Nationwide, the three categories add up to about 76 percent, leaving 24 percent in an implied “other” category. However, in a few states, the three categories add up to more than 100 percent, suggesting that developed federal lands are counted both in the developed and the federal categories. There may also be some overlap between federal and ag land.
Most of the important data are found in table 3, which the Antiplanner transferred to a spreadsheet for a more detailed review. The table shows that, nationally, ag land is estimated to be worth an average of about $2,000 an acre. However, it is worth much more–$5,000 to $16,500 an acre–in a few smaller eastern states including Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. The higher values in these states probably reflect the competition for that land by exurbanites.
They can even get themselves into the situation to, not thinking anything bad; suggest order cialis online sex on the photocopier to a colleague. Trusted massage therapists have a strong lineup of levitra 20 mg experts who provide therapy treatment for any of your illness you must visit a store which offers everything in generic medicines. The website also covers the famous music festivals like the SXSW festival or the ACL festival which are two renowned music festivals of Austin. 360 Austin bridge is another name for heart attack that is myocardial infarction. viagra samples australia It is the least common of the four types of sildenafil 100mg constipation are primary, secondary, irritable bowel syndrome and congenital. Federal land is worth an average of $4,000 an acre, but again it is worth much more–over $100,000 an acre–in those same eastern states, probably because most federal land in those states is in urban areas. Those who propose to sell federal lands to pay down the federal debt will be interested to know that the total estimated value of that land is about $1.8 trillion, or about 10 percent of the current debt.
Developed land, which occupies about 5.8 percent of the total, is worth an average of more than $100,000 an acre and adds up to slightly more than half the total value. However, the amount varies widely and not just in a few eastern states. In the Dakotas, developed land is worth less than $10,000 an acre, but in California, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia it is worth more than $400,000 an acre. Other states with particularly high land values include the smaller eastern states listed above but also Florida, New York, Virginia, and Washington.
Developed land in fast-growing states such as Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas is estimated to be worth only about $50,000 an acre. If California and other states did not have various forms of state or local growth-management planning, the Antiplanner suspects, then developed land in those states would also be worth about $50,000, not up to $450,000 (or, in the case of Washington, DC, $990,000). If so, then the artificial land shortages created by growth-management planning have increased land values by about $6 trillion. This, however, is a zero-sum or negative-sum game as it is likely that the boost in value in one area is balanced by a loss in land or other value in some other part of the economy.
I tried to estimate the value of “other” land, but the estimates are distorted by the overlap between federal and developed land. Nationwide, the numbers say these lands are worth $17,000 an acre. This, however, seems difficult to believe since these are presumably lands no one wants after taking the best lands for urban and agricultural purposes.
“Developed land in fast-growing states such as Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas is estimated to be worth only about $50,000 an acre. If California and other states did not have various forms of state or local growth-management planning, the Antiplanner suspects, then developed land in those states would also be worth about $50,000, not up to $450,000 (or, in the case of Washington, DC, $990,000).”
The developed areas in TX, NC and GA all have growth management and land use regulations. Many developers consider Austin’s regs some of the most onerous in the country. Many cities in the DFW metroplex are no different. San Antonio applies many growth management techniques lamented here. Even Houston’s Planning and Development Department uses growth management techniques and the City has recently jumped in bed with CNU (Dallas did that a long time ago. FYI, CNU is in Dallas this year).
My broken record response to these broken record posts will continue. Does growth management affect land values? Yes of course. Is it THE reason that developed land on the eastern seaboard and CA is more valuable than developed land in the Dakotas, TX, GA and NC? Nope. Try again.
The current national debt is close to $17 trillion. As part of the $23 trillion is already government land, the US government would have to take (without compensation) almost all of the land in the country to pay off the debt. There are many in government and academia and the MSM who would love the government to own it all…..
Remember, once land is owned by the government, it is no longer taxable and income derived from that land will no longer exist and thus not be taxable. So the debt would grow even faster as the tax base would be reduced.
Of course, at the current spending rate, the debt would immediately be re-created and rapidly increase. And the land is no longer available to be taken again–it is all gone. Something else will have to be taken to feed the trough. Use your imagination-the money guys in DC will certainly be using theirs.
Maybe this is the ultimate planning goal.
First of all, the current liabilities of the US government are over $200 trillion, not 17 trillion. The respected Mr. Laurence Kotlikoff figures out the number and releases it every year. In 2012, it was $222 trillion:
http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2012/12/01/economist_laurence_kotlikoff_us_222_trillion_in_debt_363.html
Second, the debt is never going to be paid off and was never intended to be paid off. The Great Default is the only way, and the right way, the government will shed its current liabilities. Hopefully with the Federal Reserve finally out of the way, society can rebuild without the debt-crazing opiates the Fed has addicted the country to.
Good to see you posting again “metrosucky” 😉 That’s such a “witticism” right?
Anyway, I’d go further and state that land is (and will be significantly) worth more than Federal Reserve Notes. Sure, you can burn FRNs to stay warm after the crash, but since the gubbamint is wagging war on cash, and the USD is 98% digital, good luck with finding FRNs to burn post default. Which is why land is with more as trees and fire wood don’t grow on money.
Hey Frank. Good to see you too.
I’ve read information that suggests banks will start charging (us) interest on deposits in the future, what with the current trend of anyone (possibly including the Federal Reserve) paying anything on deposits going south. That’s an interesting twist on being charged interest for gold receipts in the old days…we’re going to being charged interest on meaningless digits. Oh, how government delights in screwing things up!
Of course if you put all this land up for sale it would so flood the market that the actual sales price would be a small portion of that valuation.
I think one of the good arguments for public lands in the USA is that we just have too much land and it would be badly wasted if all of it were put up for sale. But I also think public land should not be sacrosanct and that it should be sold to private owners in places where it makes sense, like near growing western cities. No, not “real” National Parks and important recreation and ecological land, but that leaves a lot of land that the nation should wisely manage by privatizing some it.